Israil oversteps the mark

[CyberGnu]

Drake, I don't think it is a nations moral duty to accept refuges from a neighbouring nation on a permanent basis. A nation could, but it is not required.

When France was invaded in 1939, England could have ended the conflict by accepting all the french into england, or it could have kept on fighting Germany. Which one do you think is the moral choice?

Again, and I don't know how many times this point must be stressed: Aggression should never be tolerated. Israel should not be allowed to gain land through warfare or occupation. To do so is against the only thing good that came out of WW2...


IIRC, Europe obtains a lower portion of oil from arab states than the U.S. does... So why isn;t the U.S. more biased to the arabs? Furthermore, I know as a citizen of a eurpoean country that voting-vise, arabs get jack... Most europeans are biased against arabs, mainly because of the higher crime and unemployment levels among arab immigrant groups...

But again, since most europeans do belive aggression is wrong, they do actively condemn Israeli policies and actions.

[Natan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Vichy France was a german puppet regime.

Apparently you haven't studied WW2 to any great length. In 1939, Germany after England and France declared war on Germany because of Germanys invasion of Poland

Wasn't that invasion justified, since Germany was just trying to recover the land unjustly taken from it in 1918?

Germany attacked France. France quickly fell, and Germany set up a puppet regime in Vichy. The legitimate french goverment fled to London.

That's not really true. The Legitimate French government recalled marshall Petain from his post abroad and gave him a high position in the government. He then negotiated a peace which was passed by Parliament. De Gaulle just ran off and founded his own movement in London and called it the government of Free France.

the struggle to liberate France was led by England and later partnered with the U.S.

This is something of a misstatement of allied war aimes. Our aims were unconditional surrender, not the restoration of French territory.

The basic flaw in your assessment was the acceptance of Vichy france as a legitimate nation. On the contrary, the goverment of france was in London, trying their best to liberate France from their attackers.

Petain was the one who had an actual justification for his rule.

You never answered my question... where did you get this notion? Since I know you must have gone to an american school, I'm assuming you didn't learn it their... Was the history education in your school so bad that you had to try to get information on your own, and read a israeli textbook? Or was it your parents who told you this? Again, I'm genuinly curious...

As for this little snide remark, I do not keep track of where I learn such basic historical facts. However, to confirm what I knew about Vichy France, I turned to www.encyclopedia.com - I recommend you go there and learn something. I can assure you, I have never seen, let alone read, an Israeli textbook. So you can drop that obsession of yours.

Replace every single 'german' in my previous post with 'nazi' and you'll get the same result. People can be killed because the actions they perform, not because of the political views they have.

I said that the French resistance was considered good because it fought against the Nazis, by which, perhaps I should have clarified, the Nazi regime in Germany.

If germany hadn't invaded France, France would have had no justification killing a single german, nazi or otherwise.

If the germans would have started the holocaust without invading other countries, then France would have reason to invade Germany, I believe, and put the german goverment on trial for crimes against humanity.... Much like Sharon should be today.

Invading a country involves killing some of its citizens. Which of these statements was the one you meant to say?

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. please elaborate. Both examples.

By your reasoning, it seems that the Serbian government was just defending its land from Albanian agressors who were planning to turn it into a new country and eventually meld it with Albania. Similarly, by this logic one could say that the Paris Commune was resisting the attempts of the French puppet government to give into German control of Alsace-Lorraine and was the rightful government.

I'm not entierly sure what the point of that statement is, since to the best of my knowledge there aren't a single case of a german who opposed the holocaust but approved of germanys occupation of neighbouring countries... Maybe there were some, but I don't know of them.

IIRC, at least some the coup plotters intended to dismantle the death camps.

If there were such a person, I would say that overall, he does not deserve praise... Just as you would most likely agree that someone who approved of the holocaust but disapporved of germanys war of aggression would desreve praise...

I don't put grabbing land and killing millions of people in the same category. Or do you think Bismarck was as bad a man as Pol Pot?

You are mincing words. Sure, England declared war on germany, but as a direct result of germany invading englands ally Belgium. What difference does that make, other than make it seem like you are rebutting my point without actually saying anything?

Attacking a country's ally is not the same as attacking that country.

I have never in my life seen any propaganda claiming that germany was 'evil' for occupying alsace-lorraine... Plenty of people, however, claims that germany was the villain of WW1 because they invaded their neighbours. You really have a problem with that whole 'invasion' and 'aggression' thing...

Well then plenty of people do not seem to grasp that Alsace-Lorraine was seized by Germany in 1871, in a rather blatant land grab.

As I said before, I don't hate Israelis. I just belive in right and wrong, and that aggression is wrong.

I don't hate Palestinians. I just believe that killing innocents is wrong.

[CyberGnu]

If the Arabs defeat Israel, the Jews would be lucky to just be expelled as opposed to being killed. Arab society doesn't have the same respect for human rights that many in the West take for granted

That is beside the point. Killing people for their ethnicity is always wrong. I'm wondering if Natan belives 'might gives right' is applicable to both sides, or only when it is jews that have the upper hand...

I have to disagree with you on this. Changing borders is necessary sometimes, in order to achieve a strategic balance between opposing countries. To deny countries the right to acquire defensible borders is stupid, IMO.

Well, like it or not, this IS what we learned from WW1 and WW2. You are arguing that changing land as a result of warfare is just, as well as taking land to obtain more secure borders. Well, that is all part of the versaille treaty. The only thing it spawned was resentment in germany, which eventually led to the rise of Hitler and WW2. After WW2, the Allied leaders didn't take away any land from germany, instead they helped rebuild it. It worked very well too, I don't think Europe has had this long a peace since Roman time.

what do you think the result would be if EU and the US announced that warfare and 'secutiry concerns' is a legitimate reason to steal land? How many warlords in Africa would immediately start a war on each other, secure that no one else that didn;t have a vested interest in the region would mind? China would go on a invasion spree like nothing before it, swallowing up most of the southeast asion states, not to mention taiwan...

You seem like an intelligent guy, so consider the ramifications...

[Drake Tungsten]

America only gets 10% of its oil from the Middle East. I don't know the exact percentage figure for Europe, but I know it is much more than 10%.

Anyway, if you oppose aggression in any form, why don't you decry Arab agression in 1948? Or 1967? Or 1973? Can't you see that Israel is not just an "agressor", but a tiny country that is trying to defend its right to exist against an enormous population of Arabs that surround it and wants it to be destroyed. You're taking a very simplistic view of this struggle, much like many other Europeans.

I would also recommend that you don't take MtG's views so lightly. He is easily one of the most insightful people on these forums and his comments on this thread are dead on (as usual).

[CyberGnu]

Natan, Alsace-Lorraine has gone back and forth between geramny and france so many times, I don't really know who it belongs to... But that is beside the point. We have to deal wiht the reality that prior to WW2, ceeding parcels of land was the accepted way for nations to conduct business. We might argue that it was immoral, just like we now consider slavery, but we still have to accept it as the past and judge the morality of current actions.

Germany attacked France. France quickly fell, and Germany set up a puppet regime in Vichy. The legitimate french goverment fled to London.


That's not really true. The Legitimate French government recalled marshall Petain from his post abroad and gave him a high position in the government. He then negotiated a peace which was passed by Parliament. De Gaulle just ran off and founded his own movement in London and called it the government of Free France.
quote:


the struggle to liberate France was led by England and later partnered with the U.S.


This is something of a misstatement of allied war aimes. Our aims were unconditional surrender, not the restoration of French territory.
quote:


The basic flaw in your assessment was the acceptance of Vichy france as a legitimate nation. On the contrary, the goverment of france was in London, trying their best to liberate France from their attackers.


Petain was the one who had an actual justification for his rule.

And this whole part supports your original claim how?

So you can drop that obsession of yours.

It's not an obsession, it just baffles me how someone could have come up with the notion that the french resistance worked to obtain land from germany... It is such an incredibly bizarre conclusion. Of course, there is the possibility that you know better, but are unwilling to admit it because it would who the legitimacy of palestinian freedom fighters...

Invading a country involves killing some of its citizens. Which of these statements was the one you meant to say?

Well, the first part is obviously assuming that there is no genocide present... I thought that was quite self-evident...

IIRC, at least some the coup plotters intended to dismantle the death camps.

Are you actually claiming that they tried to kill Hitler ONLY to dismantle the deathcamps? Not at all to stop the losing war? I don't think so...

I don't put grabbing land and killing millions of people in the same category. Or do you think Bismarck was as bad a man as Pol Pot?

Not equating them does not make one of them good... Is sodomy as bad as murder? Of course not. That doesn't mean we consider the cop who sodomized (amadu diallo? can't remember the guys name) with a broomstick a nice guy, just because the McVeigh was worse...

which means you never actually commented on the point:
If there were such a person, I would say that overall, he does not deserve praise... Just as you would most likely agree that someone who approved of the holocaust but disapporved of germanys war of aggression would desreve praise...

Attacking a country's ally is not the same as attacking that country.

Actually, that IS the same thing... Look at NATO, for example.

Doesn't really matter, though...

I don't hate Palestinians. I just believe that killing innocents is wrong.

that is a non-sequiter.


I still don't get what you are referring to in your post abaout albania and the commune. I don't really know anything about the commune thing, and the albanian situation is so muddled, I'd appreciate more details.

Time for me to go home.
Night

[Natan]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze
I agree they did not cause the conflict. Yet they allowed it to arise. What about the Balfour declaration(1917)?
The British should never have created their protectorate in Palestine.

If the British hadn't, hundreds of thousands more people would have died at Hitler's hands. As it is, they were spared by coming to Mandatory Palestine in the 1930s.

And allowing -and supporting- the foundation of Israel was a conscious act, partly the result of feelings of guilt.

Yes, but Britain was engaged in a policy of de-colonization at the time, and couldn't be bothered to ensure a favorable outcome in each colony, beyond making sure Communists didn't seize power. Just as Britain left India and Pakistan to duke it out, so it left the Jews and Arabs to duke it out at the same time just a bit further west.

And it is my impression your knowledge of the European policy versus the 'Holy Land' is lacking.
Apart from seven crusades, all great European powers have in all centuries tried to have influence in Palestine and to protect Christians in the Near East, especially when the Turks were weak. After ~1650 Turkish power was gradually declining. You should read some treaties with the Porte!

All of the European powers were trying to get influence over the ENTIRE Ottoman empire, not just the Holy Land. That's why they adopted various Christian groups. Look at this logically, Europeans grabbed for themselves the parts of the Middle East they wanted with pure military force, as in Algeria, or with a little bit of finesse, as in Egypt. Even later, France assumed direct control of Lebanon and Syria, and Britain of Iraq. Why the need to install a Jewish state when European Christians could rule directly? And wouldn't it have been easier to just give Arab Christians control?

It was inevitable that some days Europeans would try to control the 'Holy' places again. Especially because the West became so powerful and the Muslim world so backward!

I disagree. What advantage would Europeans gain from controlling it, and how does Israel help them control it? Why do so many European countries side with the Palestinians if Israel serves their purposes?

History is far stronger than the individual will of a human being. Christianity is still the dominant religion of Europe, even in Russia!

Irrelevant, because it wasn't the dominant religion of the rulers.

Most Jews who founded Israel came from Europe. Without constant support -by Europe and US- Israel would not exist!

European support was irrelevant, US support was grounded in geo-strategic thinking (and domestic concerns), not in a desire to control Jerusalem.


CyberGNU: I think one of the great lessons of the twentieth century is that the nationalist obsession with the "just" or "natural" boundaries of a country is madness.

what do you think the result would be if EU and the US announced that warfare and 'secutiry concerns' is a legitimate reason to steal land? How many warlords in Africa would immediately start a war on each other, secure that no one else that didn;t have a vested interest in the region would mind? China would go on a invasion spree like nothing before it, swallowing up most of the southeast asion states, not to mention taiwan...

. . . whereas if all borders should return to their 1945 or 1948 conditions and civillians are legitimate targets, China can be nuked for occupying Tibet and Kashmir, killing 1.2 billion people. Russia has been occupying Sakhalan since 1945, that's another 150 million to cross off. I could go on to smaller fry like Syria, but I think you get the point. Consider the ramifications.

As to your question, my point is that there isn't some hard and fast formula to apply to such a matter.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
After WW2, the Allied leaders didn't take away any land from germany, instead they helped rebuild it.

Maybe they don't teach you this in European schools, but Germany lost a large amount of territory following WWII. Poland got the provinces of Pomerania and Silesia and half of East Prussia while the Soviet Union got the rest of East Prussia. Not only was the territory taken, but all of the ethnic Germans in those areas were expelled and fled to Germany. Over 12 million German refugees left Eastern Europe after the war and were resettled in Germany. All these horrible things happened, yet there has still been peace in Europe. There is no PLO (Pomeranian Liberation Organization) out blowing up Polish supermarkets. The German people accepted the fact that they had lost the war and learned to live with the consequences, distasteful as they were. Why shouldn't the Palestinians do the same thing? And why aren't the Arab nations as willing to accept Palestinian refugees into their nations as Germany was when there were 12 million German refugees? I feel bad that the Palestinians lost their land, but it's time to move on. Either agree to a real and sincere peace with the Israelis or leave. Continuing to fight for land lost 50 years ago is only going to lead to destruction.

How many warlords in Africa would immediately start a war on each other, secure that no one else that didn;t have a vested interest in the region would mind?

What do you think is happening in Africa right now?

China would go on a invasion spree like nothing before it, swallowing up most of the southeast asion states, not to mention taiwan...

International law banning conquest is not what is keeping China from attacking Taiwan. They are being deterred by American military might. Take away the US military in the region and China will wipe their ass with every international law while sailing for Taipei. Don't be so naive.

[Natan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Natan, Alsace-Lorraine has gone back and forth between geramny and france so many times, I don't really know who it belongs to...

AFAIK it was French from the seventeenth century to 1871. There wasn't even a Germany in existence until the nineteenth century.

But that is beside the point. We have to deal wiht the reality that prior to WW2, ceeding parcels of land was the accepted way for nations to conduct business. We might argue that it was immoral, just like we now consider slavery, but we still have to accept it as the past and judge the morality of current actions.

Why should WWII be the dividing line, when so many border changes were made after WWII? Most states still consider it to be legitimate. Unless you think France shouldn't have ceded Algeria to the FLN.

And this whole part supports your original claim how?

So you accept that the Vichy government was the legitimate government of France?

It's not an obsession, it just baffles me how someone could have come up with the notion that the french resistance worked to obtain land from germany... It is such an incredibly bizarre conclusion. Of course, there is the possibility that you know better, but are unwilling to admit it because it would who the legitimacy of palestinian freedom fighters...

The point is that borders are essentially arbitrary. You've just picked a random point in time which happens to suit you, and said "the borders which existed on this date are the true and just borders, any nation which deviates from them can be struck by suicide bombers and any other weapons available to kill as many civillians as necessary."

Well, the first part is obviously assuming that there is no genocide present... I thought that was quite self-evident...

Your whole claim seemed to be that the real Nazi crime was annexing French land, not killing people.

Are you actually claiming that they tried to kill Hitler ONLY to dismantle the deathcamps? Not at all to stop the losing war? I don't think so...

I don't see how it's that important. Stalin wasn't fighting to save Poland from Nazi domination, but it was still good that he fought against Hitler. Pretty much every actor in every war has some ulterior motive for its involvement. I'm not arguing that they're angels, but I'm using them to show a point, that it's the genocide which made Nazi Germany evil, not its border changes.

Not equating them does not make one of them good... Is sodomy as bad as murder? Of course not. That doesn't mean we consider the cop who sodomized (amadu diallo? can't remember the guys name) with a broomstick a nice guy, just because the McVeigh was worse...

I assumed that your moral equivalencies between Nazis and Israel reflected your belief that genocide and land annexation are equally evil, rather than simply rather mediocre trolls.

I still don't get what you are referring to in your post abaout albania and the commune. I don't really know anything about the commune thing, and the albanian situation is so muddled, I'd appreciate more details.

I've provided a summary of the relevant facts, if there's anything more you'd like know, either be specific or research yourself. I can't "give details," that request is a little too general.

[muppet]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
China would go on a invasion spree like nothing before it, swallowing up most of the southeast asion states, not to mention taiwan...

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
International law banning conquest is not what is keeping China from attacking Taiwan. They are being deterred by American military might. Take away the US military in the region and China will wipe their ass with every international law while sailing for Taipei. Don't be so naive.

Generally interesting discussion. Let's not ruin it with fantastic assumptions as to what is 'preventing' China from invading Taiwan.

China's 'threats' to Taiwan has more to do with posturing than anything else. Claims to Taiwan could conceivably be used as a bargaining chip in other international negotiations. China-Taiwan economies and relationships have, practically speaking, never been closer.

If China has ever seriously wanted to militarily take Taiwan or another neighbouring region, it would have been done before we were born.

Not today, in an more internationally responsible and aware environment. Not today, with a more free, better educated, and more aware mainland Chinese population.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
what do you think the result would be if EU and the US announced that warfare and 'secutiry concerns' is a legitimate reason to steal land?

Legitimate? When did we get a true form of international law for such terms to be of any meaning?

There are many conflicts in which the EU and the US don't intervene in.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by muppet
China's 'threats' to Taiwan has more to do with posturing than anything else. Claims to Taiwan could conceivably be used as a bargaining chip in other international negotiations. China-Taiwan economies and relationships have, practically speaking, never been closer.

I don't agree with this. China views Taiwan as a rightful part of the Middle Kingdom and has great interest in reuniting it with the rest of China. There are two reasons that China hasn't taken it back already, IMO.

1. China lacks the force projection capabilities necessary to invade Taiwan.

2. The US is staunchly supportive of Taiwan.

Because of these reasons, China's threats to Taiwan right now are posturing. However, if China get the military capabilities it needs in the future and America pulls back from its support of Taiwan, China will take Taiwan back.

If China has ever seriously wanted to militarily take Taiwan or another neighbouring region, it would have been done before we were born.

They seriously want to take Taiwan back, by military force if need be. They haven't tried yet because they are incapable of it. The Chinese aren't stupid; they know that they probably can't beat Taiwan's own defense forces, let alone the US seventh fleet. Just because they can't do something doesn't mean they don't want to.

[Grrr]

I posted a thread on that exact topic: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=46699

[Guardian]

Originally posted by CyberGnu

As long as Israel occupies palestine, the murders you talk of ARE cries for freedom...

Well, if this is how they cry for freedom, then they do not deserve it.

If the two of us lived down there and I blew up your sister while she was riding a bus to work one morning, would you call me a freedom fighter and ask your government to give me what I wanted?

It's not that simple, is it?

[Rasputin]

Hmmm interesting to Read Alexander's Horses comments re rights of conquerers keeping land. I mean he lives in Australia as well as I do and we are living in conquered territory, our aboriginals still claim the land as theirs, but i dont see too many people lining up to give it back!!!!

Same goes for USA how much land was won from indians!!! ( I know some wass bought cheap)

Texas was mexican IIRC So was california..

how bout the original inhabitnats of South america ??

Does all land attained through war have to be returned?

Many here speak of WW2 and WW1 of Germanys aggresion for invading its neighbours, go back far enough and the Germanic tribes controlled all of Europe nearly even the French are originally a germanic tribe (The Franks)...

There was no Palestinians until the Palestinian mandate was drawn up and given to the English... Palestine is a name we gave the teritory.

Also remember that Jews were living in and emigrating to the Mid East well before 1948 settlements were known to exist in the early 1800's. The reason for splitting into zones of Jewish and arab was to stop the troubles that already existed. But that didnt work. The Jews were given just the land that they were a vast majority of settlements. The Arabs got most of the good land along the jordan, which is where they lived. But they didnt accept that and in 1948 tried to take all the land. They lost and Israel expanded.

Israel has not kept all land it has conquered, remember the Sinai was given back.

[Az]

very intersting discussion. Sadly I am to ignorant to join in.